The State v Sabau

The accused, a 46-year-old first offender, was driving a commuter omnibus with five passengers on board when he collided into seven stationary vehicles, likely due to over-speeding combined with defective brakes. All vehicles were damaged but no one was injured. The accused was married with four children, self-employed as a driver earning US$40 per week, with no savings but owning 5 bovines. He held a driver's licence for Classes 2, 4 and 5 motor vehicles. He pleaded guilty to negligent driving in contravention of section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act.

• Whether the trial magistrate correctly applied sections 52(4) and 65 of the Road Traffic Act in imposing prohibition from driving
• Whether the prohibition from driving should extend to all classes of motor vehicles unless specifically excepted
• Whether the cancellation of the driver's licence must be co-extensive with the classes of motor vehicle to which the prohibition extends
• Whether the trial magistrate properly considered and endorsed special circumstances on the record

The conviction was confirmed. The matter was remitted to the trial magistrate to institute the procedure under section 65(6) of the Road Traffic Act and to correct the sentence in conformity with the guidelines set out in the review judgment.

When imposing prohibition from driving under section 65(1) read with section 65(3) of the Road Traffic Act, the court must impose the prohibition generally to all classes of motor vehicles, and then specifically indicate the classes to which the prohibition would not extend. Before excepting any classes from the general prohibition, the court must consider whether special circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence justify such non-extension and must endorse such special circumstances on the record. The cancellation of a driver's licence under section 65(5) must be co-extensive with the classes of motor vehicle to which the prohibition from driving extends.

The court noted the trial magistrate's concern that if the accused was not prohibited from driving Class 1 vehicles, he could obtain a Class 1 licence which would enable him to drive vehicles in all other classes including Class 2, thereby defeating the prohibition. While this concern was acknowledged, the court did not endorse this reasoning as a basis for departing from the statutory framework. The court also observed that corrective action under section 65(6) is subject to the six-month limitation period in section 65(8), after which notice cannot be served on the convicted person.

This case provides important guidance on the correct interpretation and application of sections 52(4) and 65 of the Road Traffic Act regarding prohibition from driving and cancellation of driver's licences. It clarifies that the statutory framework requires a general prohibition across all classes of motor vehicles, with the court having discretion to except specific classes (other than the class of vehicle involved in the offence), rather than the reverse approach. It also establishes the principle that cancellation of a licence must be co-extensive with the prohibition imposed, and emphasizes the importance of properly considering and endorsing special circumstances on the record when departing from the general prohibition provisions.